December 26, 2009

I sent your link to my list. This came in from a fellow who lives in
south Africa. He's a good man.
He gave me permission to forward to you.
If you have time to correspond with him, I would be interested in
being copied.

Sent: 12/24/2009 12:09:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
Subj: Re: Pagan Propaganda: The Other Attack on Christmas
Sorry, but Mr Duke is wrong on many points. It is well established (and has been for more than 150 years in a wide range of scholarship) that Christmas and Easter are "Christianized" pagan
events (along with dozens of others, including Lent, "All Saints Day," and so on). I personally have studied this issue deeply and
for some years and I'm satisfied with the provenance of the scholarship and analysis. I'm afraid he's a reverse-PC revisionist. This kind of thing does little for the credibility of the cause of Biblical Christianity.

December 23, 2009

Since an understanding of the Constitution is so rare nowadays, I've decided to respond to a poster who advocates the reckless and unlawful "living document" philosophy. I address his points at length, and I think you may find elements of the response useful in framing your arguments when defending the Constitution.

November 21, 2009

The GAP's Relativistic "Holiday Commercial"

While many wouldn't classify this GAP commercial as an "attack" upon Christmas, it certainly is an example of the demotion of it. It begins and ends with relativistic sentiments (using relativism is a more clever way of diminishing faith than overt attacks are) and lends credence to "Kwanzaa," that Festivus-like "holiday" originated by the brutal criminal-cum-college professor Ron Kerenga. Here are the lyrics:

Two, four, six, eight,
'Tis the time to liberate! Go Christmas!
Go Hanukkah!
Go Kwanzaa!
Go Solstice!
Go classic tree, go plastic tree, go plant a tree, go without a tree!
You 86 the rules!
You do what just feels right!
Happy do whatever you wannakkah and to all . . . a cheery night!

Go Solstice? Give me a break. Hey, Sensitivity Police, I think you forgot a few people there. The are eight million religious/cultural/do-whatever-you wannakkah traditions in this naked world, and you wouldn't want to offend anybody, you know (except for the people whose culture you're destroying, but who is worried about them? They're not voting for the socialist, new-world-odor types).

This commercial is a good example of how moral relativism permeates every aspect of our society, something I've written much about. You "86 the rules" and "do what just feels right"? Yes, that's exactly what this society needs to hear. This should end well.

It's a funny thing, though, when I did what felt right to me and ignored the dictates of the politically correct puppeteers, the SPLC put me on their Hatewatch page. Well, I guess we can't expect relativistic leftists to adhere to their own principles — especially since they don't actually have any.

Anyway, I'm starting to think that "GAP" refers to something situated between two ears. And I guess they won't mind if what "feels right" to me is to avoid shopping at their stores.

November 17, 2009

Is Being Forced to Buy Health Insurance Constitutional? Pelosi Scoffs at the Constitution

In this video, a reporter actually decides to do his job and ask Nancy Pelosi what in the Constitution gives the federal government the right to force citizens to buy health insurance. Her response?

"Are you serious?! Are you serious?!"
That's what she said.

Well, it isn't surprising, as most of our politicians — just like the people, whom they reflect — are either ignorant of what the Constitution dictates or of why it's important to abide by it. And when it's the latter, it's usually accompanied by a contempt for this "200-year-old document."

This is tragic because it places all our rights and freedoms in jeopardy — even those we hold most dear. After all, the Constitution is the contract we Americans have with one another, and it is the guarantor of those rights and freedoms. Thus, what can happen if it's rendered impotent?

This is why you don't have to "love" the Constitution to be a constitutionalist. I myself would change certain things about our founding document if I could, but I understand that until and unless we do so through the amendment process, we must abide by the current rules of the game. Because if we don't, the game breaks down. Simply put, for a constitutional republic to last, we must accept the proposition that we should abide by its constitution.

November 08, 2009

Member of Major Hasan's Mosque: "I honestly have no pity for them [the Fort Hood victims]"

By Selwyn Duke

Here is a BBC interview with "Duane," a member of the Fort Hood shooter's mosque. A good example of the jihadist mentality harbored by some within our borders, he says that he won't "condemn" Nidal Malik Hasan because the murderer is a "brother."

In all fairness, the interviewer, Gavin Lee, points out that Duane's was a minority view at the mosque. Still, though, we have to wonder how many jihadist-minded Muslims there are in our nation. And how many others are sympathetic enough to remain silent?

An even better question is: How many leftists who facilitate anti-American movements and encourage the invasion of our nation are there?

Answer: tens of millions.

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. — Marcus Tullius Cicero, 58 B.C.

November 06, 2009

Recently I wrote a piece titled "Obama Pushing Secular UN Anti-Free Speech Resolution," wherein I reported on Barack Obama's support of a Muslim-inspired United Nations anti-blasphemy resolution. In it I cited a liberal professor named Jonathan Turley, who wrote the following:

While attracting surprisingly little attention, the Obama
administration supported the effort of largely Muslim nations in the
U.N. Human Rights Council to recognize exceptions to free speech for
any "negative racial and religious stereotyping." The exception was
made as part of a resolution supporting free speech that passed this
month, but it is the exception, not the rule that worries civil
libertarians.... It is viewed as a transparent bid to appeal to the
"Muslim street" and our Arab allies, with the administration seeking
greater coexistence through the curtailment of objectionable speech.
Though it has no direct enforcement (and is weaker than earlier
versions), it is still viewed as a victory for those who sought to
juxtapose and balance the rights of speech and religion.

October 29, 2009

Recently I wrote about the Tucson Unified School District, where the powers-that-be decided that punishment should be meted out based on racial quotas. And during the last couple of days I posted videos of British citizens being punished for expressing politically incorrect ideas (one couple ran afoul of the "law," to use the term loosely, because they had the temerity to debate religion with a Moslem). Now there is another story out of the U.K. that's in the same vein. It concerns a school named Ridgeway, a place in which the administrators were so afraid of being branded "racists" (among the other psychological problems with which they, being thoroughly modern liberals, are no doubt afflicted) that they refused to hold minority students accountable for misbehavior. What was the result?

October 28, 2009

Elderly Woman Persecuted for Expressing Christian BeliefsThis is yet another story about an English Christian being persecuted for voicing her beliefs. In this case the victim is Pauline Howe, who received a visit from the police after writing a letter to local authorities expressing displeasure with a homosexual parade.

Could you imagine being brought up on criminal charges simply for debating religion with a Moslem? Well, that's exactly what happened to the two English Christians featured in this news report.

After Ben And Sharon Vogelenzang engaged in a debate about faith with an Islamic woman, the latter complained that she felt "offended" by their beliefs. This led to the arrest of the couple, who now face a criminal trial on December 8.

Sadly, this is not that unusual in the U.K., as numerous Englishmen have been arrested for "hate speech," specious "racial offenses" or some variation thereof. In fact, I will shortly post a second video about another U.K. Christian who was persecuted for expressing her beliefs.

This should serve as a shot across the bow to all of us. Make no mistake, unless something upsets the apple cart (which is likely), we'll see hate-speech laws in the U.S. in the not-too-distant future.

Oh, would anyone like to hazard a guess on whether or not the Moslem woman in this case was arrested? Well, I guess all offense is equal, but some is more equal than others.